29

Debate Type: Traditional Debate

Rounds: 3

Time Per Round: 1 Hour Per Round

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Voting

Arguments

I believe that cognitive computing will exceed human capability. We already have many tasks that were automated by robots and AI is only beginning to take hold. Rate of progress will be exponential, so while I don't think every activity will be better done by robots, many of activities we do today are likely will be.

I accept the challenge and support Humans instead of computers.Computers lack creativity and many of the deductive reasoning skills we take for granted. Our brain is the most powerful computer based on biological neurons.

@CuriousGeorge, thank you for accepting my debate. The power of computer processing is always increasing and that's why I am giving it a 50 year window to catchup to the human brain. Also, AI is based on distributed computing power, not just one computer

I understand @agsr that the power will increase and will become more powerful. However, computers will not have artistic skills and our brains are wired in a different way than computers. We will each be better in some things and worse in others

I am not arguing and agreeing with you that it will be a mix of activities that humans will still be better at than us. I am arguing that most of the activities we know today will be superceeded by robots. We will have to stretch our cognitive advantage to focus things that robots cannot do as easily. It can be a big opportunity for us to improve.

Explanation:
Over the past 2000 years, Human beings have likened the Brain or relationship between the Brain and body in six notable ways. The earliest being that Humans were made of clay and a God infused his spirit into it, this explained our intelligence, grammatically at least. Upon the emergence of hydraulic engineering in the 3rd century, popular belief transitioned into a hydraulic model of Human intelligence...believing that the flow of different fluids throughout our body accounted for all physical and mental functions. In the 1500s we had transitioned into automated machinery powered with springs and gears...you guessed it, we thought of the Brain as a simple machine and likened it to several at the time.

Research and study into chemistry in the 1700s led to shifted views of the brain yet again and in the 1800s we were comparing the Brain to a telegraph. Today, in keeping with our historical tradition of comparing the Human brain to the most sophisticated technology available...we compare it to the Computer...and wrongfully so.

Human brains are nothing like computers, they don't function in similar ways even when being creative with the comparisons. Firstly, we don't know where Human thoughts even occur. We've speculated, we have hypothesis and theories concerning where they might happen but we simply don't know...we actually don't even know if thoughts occur in the Brain at all. Yes, neurons fire off in the brain when Humans are reported to have been thinking...does that prove that thoughts are causing it or are the result of it? Nope. It shows a relationship that cannot be described...nothing more.

There is no Scientist in the world that has opened a Human Brain and said "Right there...that's a memory". We've never seen where memories are stored in the brain and we don't know that they even are. Case in point is the psychological phenomenon that is the difference between the Brain and the Mind. When under hypnosis, patients have been told that they are going to be scalded with a red-hot branding iron. Immediately following they were touched instead with a room temperature pencil. The result...the patient's skin blistered, turned red and they screamed in pain as their body reacted as if they had been actually touched with something that was red-hot.

If the Brain and the Mind were not separate, then the body would not respond to subconscious suggestion in this way. The resulting conclusion is that it's possible that the Mind controls the body instead of the Brain.

My argument is that a conclusion that artificial intelligence or computers will surpass Human brains is a problematic conclusion based on a very real yet erroneous comparison of Computers to the Human Brain. You can't compare a Computer to a Human Brain any more than you can compare the Brain to a telegraph.

Explanation:
The agents did little to argue that robots won't serpas humans brain power. They argued only for some ways computers will fail to surpass humans. But not touching on all ways robots could pass humans. The debate was not very deep but I have to say the for argued for the topic better. : )